Faculty Bibliography

Aims/UNASSIGNED:To define outcomes of patients with COVID-19 compared to patients without COVID-19 suffering in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). Materials and methods/UNASSIGNED:We performed a single-center retrospective study of IHCA cases. Patients with COVID-19 were compared to consecutive patients without COVID-19 from the prior year. Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 30-day survival, and cerebral performance category (CPC) at 30-days were assessed. Results/UNASSIGNED:Fifty-five patients with COVID-19 suffering IHCA were identified and compared to 55 consecutive IHCA patients in 2019. The COVID-19 cohort was more likely to require vasoactive agents (67.3% v 32.7%, p = 0.001), invasive mechanical ventilation (76.4% v 23.6%, p < 0.001), renal replacement therapy (18.2% v 3.6%, p = 0.029) and intensive care unit care (83.6% v 50.9%, p = 0.001) prior to IHCA. Patients with COVID-19 had shorter CPR duration (10 min v 22 min, p = 0.002). ROSC (38.2% v 49.1%, p = 0.336) and 30-day survival (20% v 32.7%, p = 0.194) did not differ. A 30-day cerebral performance category of 1 or 2 was more common among non-COVID patients (27.3% v 9.1%, p = 0.048). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Return of spontaneous circulation and 30-day survival were similar between IHCA patients with and without COVID-19. Compared to previously published data, we report greater ROSC and 30-day survival after IHCA in COVID-19.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 emerged as a serious human pathogen in late 2019, causing the disease coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The most common clinical presentation of severe COVID-19 is acute respiratory failure consistent with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Airway, lung parenchymal, pulmonary vascular, and respiratory neuromuscular disorders all feature in COVID-19. This article reviews what is known about the effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection on different parts of the respiratory system, clues to understanding the underlying biology of respiratory disease, and highlights current and future translation and clinical research questions.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The rate of thromboembolic events among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 is high; however, there is no robust method to identify those at greatest risk. We reviewed thromboelastography studies in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 to characterize their coagulation states. DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective. SETTING/METHODS:Tertiary ICU in New York City. PATIENTS/METHODS:Sixty-four patients with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to the ICU with thromboelastography performed. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS/RESULTS:Fifty percent of patients had a clotting index in the hypercoagulable range (clotting index > 3) (median 3.05). Reaction time and K values were below the lower limit of normal in 43.8% of the population consistent with a hypercoagulable profile. The median α angle and maximum amplitude (75.8° and 72.8 mm, respectively) were in the hypercoagulable range. The α angle was above reference range in 70.3% of patients indicative of rapid clot formation. Maximum amplitude, a factor of fibrinogen and platelet count and function, and a measure of clot strength was above reference range in 60.1% of patients. Thirty-one percent had thromboembolic events; thromboelastography parameters did not correlate with events in our cohort. Those with D-dimer values greater than 2,000 were more likely to have shorter reaction times compared with those with D-dimer levels less than or equal to 2,000 (4.8 vs 5.6 min; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:A large proportion of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 have hypercoagulable thromboelastography profiles with additional derangements related to fibrinogen and platelet function. As the majority of patients have an elevated thromboelastography maximum amplitude, a follow-up study evaluating platelet aggregation would be instructive.

BACKGROUND:Emerging evidence shows that severe COVID-19 can be complicated by a significant coagulopathy, that likely manifests in the form of both microthrombosis and venous thromboembolism (VTE). This recognition has led to the urgent need for practical guidance regarding prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE. METHODS:A group of approved panelists developed key clinical questions by using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format that addressed urgent clinical questions regarding the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19. MEDLINE (via PubMed or Ovid), Embase and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials were systematically searched for relevant literature and references were screened for inclusion. Validated evaluation tools were used to grade the level of evidence to support each recommendation. When evidence did not exist, guidance was developed based on consensus using the modified Delphi process. RESULTS:The systematic review and critical analysis of the literature based on13 PICO questions resulted in 22 statements. Very little evidence exists in the COVID-19 population. The panel thus used expert consensus and existing evidence-based guidelines to craft the guidance statements. CONCLUSIONS:The evidence on the optimal strategies to prevent, diagnose, and treat venous thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 is sparse, but rapidly evolving.

BACKGROUND:Pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) have become increasingly popular at institutions around the country, although the evidence to support their efficacy is limited. PERTs are mechanisms for rapid involvement of a multidisciplinary team in the management of a time-sensitive condition with many treatment options. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed 201 patients with PERT activations since inception, collecting data on demographics, time to treatment, treatment modality, and in-hospital outcomes. RESULTS:Massive pulmonary embolism accounted for 16 (8.7%) PERT activations. The majority of patients were treated without invasive intervention; 91.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.1%-95.7%) of patients received anticoagulation alone, 4.5% (95% CI, 0%-18.6%) had catheter-directed therapy (CDT), and 3.0% (95% CI, 0%-16.9%) had systemic administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA). The average time to intervention was 665 minutes (95% CI, 249-1080 minutes) for CDT and 22 minutes (95% CI, 0-456 minutes) for systemic TPA. The average time to anticoagulation was 2.3 minutes (95% CI, 0-43 minutes). There was a trend toward higher rates of cardiac events (odds ratio [OR], 12.68; 95% CI, 0.62-65.74) and death (OR, 3.19; 95% CI, 0.28-5.18) among patients with massive PE. There was a higher rate of cardiac events (OR, 5.66; 95% CI, 1.34-23.83) among patients who received tPA or an invasive intervention. There was no difference in mortality rates of patients who underwent aggressive management compared with anticoagulation alone. CONCLUSIONS:A dedicated PERT results in efficient delivery of care and excellent outcomes, in part owing to the rapid (on average, 8 minutes) time to initiation of a multidisciplinary discussion. Patients who ultimately underwent CDT had an interval of >10 hours on average between diagnosis and CDT. This provisional or delayed approach to CDT in selected patients who were not improving with anticoagulation alone (and therefore had potential for higher net benefit from a procedure with its own inherent risks) may have resulted in a lower rate of CDT.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) velocity time integral (VTI), an echocardiographic measure of stroke distance, correlates with cardiac index. We sought to determine the prognostic significance of low RVOT VTI on clinical outcomes among patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We conducted a retrospective review of echocardiograms on Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) activations at our institution. The main outcome was a composite of death, cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic deterioration. RESULTS:Of 188 patients, 30 met the combined outcome (16%) and had significantly lower RVOT VTI measurements (9.0 cm v 13.4 cm, p < 0.0001). The AUC for RVOT VTI at a cutoff of 10 cm was 0.78 (95% CI 0.67-0.90) with a sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of 0.72, 0.81, 0.94, and 0.42, respectively. Fifty-two patients of the cohort were classified as intermediate-high-risk PE and 21% of those met the combined outcome. RVOT VTI was lower among outcome positive patients (7.3 cm v 10.7 cm, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:Low RVOT VTI is associated with poor clinical outcomes among patients with acute PE.